Page images
PDF
EPUB

hazard; then the Fire Department inspects them through its bureau of fire prevention, or otherwise, inspects the various buildings from time to time, but an owner can not alter a building without going to the Department of Building and then back to the Fire Department again. Now would it be practicable to make the Bureau of Buildings a branch of the Fire Department and thus do away with the multiplicity of inspections? A. Your question hints at a quite different department than the present Fire Department, perhaps it will come to such a point that we wont have fires and it will all be fire prevention. Off hand I hardly think it feasible to do that now. I would be tempted to go the other

way.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. You mean you would take the Fire Prevention Bureau away from the Fire Department and put it in the Building Department? A. It seems more logical. Let me have that clear. I was tempted to believe that we are coming to the time when all fire work will be largely limited to fire prevention work, that that will take the place of much of the work now being done by the Fire Department.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. There are now as I understand thirty-one departments of the city government or about that number. Am I right about that? A. About thirty-one. Some are Boards.

Q. Now is it possible by consolidating any of these departments to do away with any of this duplication I do not think there is so much of that as multiplicity of inspection isn't that the real remedy by consolidating or abolishing departments? A. Well, it isn't the remedy so much because after all when you get a department consolidated you get various subdivisions and you may have orders emanating from bureaus, lying all over the desk of the head of the bureau, who has so many things to attend to that they may be neglected. I do not think that is the solution. I think it is possible to have those processes performed simultaneously. I state 110 conclusion regarding it, but the question involves consideration of the problem as to whether or not it should not be possible for the men who examine the plans

for the Bureau of Buildings and all that involves, at the same time to examine them with reference to the Water Department, to the fire prevention work and Tenement House Department. It should be possible to get plan examiners to do that work. I think that should be discussed. For instance, Mr. Lawrence Veiller would have definite ideas as to whether or not it is desirable to bring about these consolidations. an administrative propIf that were done there

As

osition it seems to me sound off-hand. should be a great deal less irritation.

[ocr errors]

Q. That could be done by the city? A. That could be done, I suppose, by statutory changes.

Q. Do you require legislation to do that or can it be done under the home rule bill? A. There is no such thing.

Q. Can it be done by the Board of Aldermen? A. Anything can be done by the Board of Aldermen but it can be effected by the Legislature.

Q. Now are you in favor of anything along the lines of the seventh question which is outlined today"Shall there be a permanent conference board of the heads of City and State departments making inspections of buildings in New York City, etc.? A. I think, Mr. Elkus, there should be a conference now. I believe it is unwise for any of us to state conclusions regarding this matter. I am no more able to state a conclusion than you are, I assume. I do think we should consider it. I believe we should now have a conference to find out whether there is the possibility of this consolidation we have been talking of, and whether or not there is duplication or conflict. A permanent conference could not handle differences of administrative detail, but the conference should last long enough until some conclusion is reached. I think if you did that it would be a splendid thing. I think if you got a conference of these various departments, boards and bureaus and have the matter not only discussed but thoroughly inquired into you would smooth out conditions a great deal. I believe it wiser to act in this way rather than to jump at conclusions because we would be going out of the frying pan into the fire.

Q. Do you mean conference on proposed plans or legislation? A. I mean conferences on the administrative problems. I believe in enforcing these various laws. I imagine there has never been VOL. V 74

held a conference between the five or six agencies that now have to consider at some stage in its career the problems concerning a building erected by a property owner. Let them come together and find out where there is actual duplication. The law may not state duplication, but the working out of administrative procedure may develop duplication. It seems to me the wise thing to do now is not to attempt a conclusion academically but to reach it after months of considered deliberation of a number of these questions.

By Commissioner GOMPERS:

Q. You would be opposed to the lessening of the emphasis on each special feature? A. I think there is danger in lessening emphasis. You can get an administrative organization so big that it can not operate.

By Mr. ELKUS:

[ocr errors]

Q. I would be very glad to hear from you further. A. I came in response to your invitation because (and I assumed that Mr. Adamson and the other gentlemen who are representing departments of the city will say similar things) we are now considering this problem. We recognize it as a distinctly important present problem. My own view is we are not ready for any conclusions. Perhaps the other gentlemen have reached conclusions. If we have not reached conclusions I suggest as a wise course to follow, since the Factory Commission has precipitated this discussion more or less, that the initiative might properly come from you to bring together these different factors in a more or less permanent conference, not for the purpose of administering these various lawз but for the purposeof determining upon a policy of administration forgetting for the time being the jurisdictional differences.

Q. I may say to you this hearing was designed by the Commission to be the beginning of a series of conferences which would take place after the public hearing along the lines you state. I think I said that to you. A. I assume that is it. I will not now present to you gentlemen any of these mooted suggestions. We are not ready to submit them but we will be very glad to work in cooperation with you to reach such conclusions as we can.

ALDERMAN POUKER: May I ask the witness a question?

MR. ELKUS: You may.

By Alderman POUKER:

Q. How would you answer question number 1, "should there be a department of labor for the city of New York and one for the rest of the State" ? A. I do not think we should have a department for the city of New York and another for the rest of the State.

MR. ELKUS: Thank you very much, Mr. Bruère.

Hon. ROBERT ADAMSON (Fire Commissioner) addressed the
Commission as follows:

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. Commissioner, you have been at the head of the Fire Department how long? A. Since the first of January.

Q. And during that time since you have been there have you obtained sufficient assistants in your department so as to make. more inspections in proportion since the first of the year than there had been before? A. We haven't obtained any additional force, if that is what you mean, Mr. Elkus.

Q. Have you made more inspections? A. I think we have made more inspections of property.

Q. Can you give the numbers? A. I can not give you the exact number, perhaps Mr. Hammit can. I have them at the office. I can get them for you very quickly.

Q. Will you send them to me? A. Yes.

Q. Now you have studied this question which is before the Commission to-day, have you Commissioner? A. To some extent,

yes.

Q. We will be glad to have your views in your own way upon the subject; now this Commission desires to find some way of relieving the property owner and the employer of unnecessary or duplication of inspections. There has been some complaint about inspections I do not understand so much the duplication of inspections as the multiplicity of them, and if it can be avoided and still have the work done properly, of course it ought to be

done, and if any way can properly be found to do it it ought to be found, and that is the purpose of asking you to come here to-day? A. I was very much interested in the statement that you made at the outset that you have not been able to find any specific cases. We have had quite a number of cases coming into the department but most of them have been cases where the factory owners have been required to fireproof the windows leading to fire escapes. We have had quite a number of complaints of that kind, but otherwise I do not recall any specific complaints.

Q. Or duplication? A. Or duplication. I think there is considerable irritation on the part of the public due to the fact that there are so many jurisdictions dealing with this problem generally. I think the criticism or complaint which we have heard recently has come from the fact that another jurisdiction has been added in the matter of factory inspections recently. You know various jurisdictions are dealing with the matter now, and when the Fire Prevention Bureau was created and began to inspect buildings and issue orders there was considerable complaint at that time also, and then when added to that came the factory inspections here the complaint became more or less general. By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. We might have extended the requirements, Commissioner, but the Labor Department always had jurisdiction over these different factories? A. The division of jurisdiction as to requirements in factories, the matter of exits, that was taken from the Fire Department and put in the Labor Department. That is what I refer to.

By Mr. ELKUS:

Q. That is as to the number of exits and size? A. Yes, I have never had any citizen's complaint that was not more or less general. There is undoubtedly a feeling of irritation and dissatisfaction on the part of a great many property owners over the fact that so many different jurisdictions are dealing with this question. That seems to be undoubted. Now the question has been raised here of some practical plan of avoiding duplication of inspection. That is a matter which was taken up by the Fire Department several weeks ago and there is now in existence a joint committee

« PreviousContinue »